properly This manner of speaking then being so common and familiar with that Nation well may we interpret our Saviour's words This is my Body in the same manner according to the nature of a Sacrament and the subject Matter thereof So it is said that the Rock which followed the Israelites was Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of the Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ Sure there can be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in another manner when this form of Speech was so common among them but it is very agreeable to understand them as we understand them Besides it is but the same form of Speech which was used by the Jews in celebrating the Passover which our Saviour and his Disciples had been just now about And he instituted this Sacrament for the like End as the Passover had been and it was now for ever to succeed in its place This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge we are told was the form among the Jews meaning that it did put them in mind and represent to them the Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the true Paschal Lamb that was to take away the Sins of the World. And at the Passover the Master of the House likewise took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt not the very Bread sure but only a Type or Figure of it So our Saviour in like manner accommodating himself to their Customs and Phrases used the very same Symbols and express'd himself accordingly This is my Body which is broken for you which our Saviour appointed in remembrance of himself ever after in the room of the Paschal Lamb. Now how should we understand our Saviour's words then but agreeably to the old form in the like case Besides it is plain from the words themselves about the Institution that it was very Bread of which he said This is my Body For it is said He took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my Body What he took he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But he took Bread therefore of the Bread he said This is my Body And if it was Bread then it could not be his very Body but only a Symbol or Sign o◠it because it was Bread still And that it was Bread still ever after the Consecration we have also the Apostle's words for it 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread. So that it is Bread still which they are partakers of which was after the Consecration So again Chap. 11. 26 27 28. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. Where he calls it Bread three times in three Verses together even after the Consecration In like manner our Saviour speaking of the Cup when he had said Mat. 26 28. This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately after adds 〈…〉 unto you I will not henceforth drink of this 〈…〉 Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom From whence it is plain that it was the Fruit of the Vine and real Wine which he drank with his Disciples and that was after the Consecration Besides if the substance of Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament into the very substance of the Body and Blood of Christ when is it done Is it done before those words were pronounc'd This is my Body or in them or after them If it was done before When was it done or by what Command or in what way If it be not done till after they are all pronounc'd or till after the word Is is pronounc'd then it is false to say This is my Body before the change is wrought which is not till after the word Is is pronounc'd for these words are only declarative of what is before and are not imperative of what should be And if it was not before these words were pronounc'd then a thing is pronounc'd to be which was not which is a false Proposition And if it had been intended that the change should have been wrought by these words then it should have been Let this be my Body or This shall be my Body and not This is my Body which only declares what a thing was before and doth not command it to be what it was not So that in truth it only means that the Bread was set a-part by our Saviour for the Sign and Token of his Body when he blessed it and gave Thanks Again our Saviour gave to his Disciples his Body as broken But then his Body was really whole and unbroken for it was before his Passion and it was the Bread only that was broken Therefore our Saviour did not give his very Body but the Bread broken only as a Symbol of his Body which was to be broken So that it was really Bread which he gave and not his very natural Body but the Bread as a sign of his Body and for that reason called his Body because signifying it And so these words are to be understood only in a Figure Are not these words to be understood in a Figure 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread Or are all Christians turn'd into Bread first and then into the Body of Christ by their being made partakers of the Bread in the Sacrament It is as good an Argument to argue so from these words as to argue from our Saviour's This is my Body that therefore the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of his Body But the figurative way of speaking is evident and undeniable in the other part of the Sacrament about the Cup Luke 22. 20. And therefore why may not we suppose the like in the former about the Body This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is Figure upon Figure the Cup for the Wine But neither Cup nor Wine is the New Testament nor yet our Saviour's Blood neither but the Seal of it But as our Saviour's Blood was the Seal of the New Testament and of all the Promises and Benefits contained in it So was the Wine a sign of his Blood and as such was given to the Disciples as a Seal of the New Covenant confirmed by our Saviour's Blood. And that this must
that which we perceive clearly with all our Senses and which we can reason as plainly about as about any thing whatsoever Or if our Saviour and his Apostles were now preaching or working Miracles in the World how should we judg of all they said or did but by those Mediums which about Transubstantiation we must entirely renounce CHAP. XXVI That the Mass is not only a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross but that the self-same Christ is therein offered that offered himself upon the Cross and that this Sacrifice performed by the Priest is truly propitiatory for the Remission of Sins of the Quick and Dead Council of Trent Sess 22. chap. 2. Can. 1 2 3. THis is a consequent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament without which it cannot subsist For if the very Body of our Saviour be not substantially and properly present in the Sacrament then how can there be a proper Oblation of the Body of Christ there For how can there be a proper Oblation of that that is not properly and substantially there The Body of Christ being there in a Figure or Representation there is a commemoration of the Sacrifice of his Body which he offered on the Cross and there is a representation of the Sacrifice of his Body made there upon which account it may be called a Commemorative Sacrifice But there being no proper or corporal Presence of his Body there can be no proper Oblation of it So that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being refuted before this being a Consequent of it must fall with it There is the Sacrifice of Christ in a Figure indeed that is there is a Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ by the Bread broken and the Wine poured forth which represents to us the breaking of his Body and the shedding of his Blood in the Offering which he made of himself on the Cross So the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come So that therein the Death of Christ is shewed forth and we have Communion with him in his Benefits by an Act of Faith when we partake of the Symbols of his Body and Blood. And it was for this End for the nourishing and confirming our Faith and the expressing our gratitude to our dying Lord by keeping up a grateful remembrance of his Death that this holy Rite was instituted But read the Institution entire Luk. 22. there is not the least intimation of any sacrificial Act there performed by our Saviour or commanded the Disciples He took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat this is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of me A Sacrifice is offered to God but here is nothing offered to God but a representation of thatâ— Body that was to be broken and offered and the Bread distributed to the Disciples to nourish their Faith. And indeed that which our Saviour did then could not possibly be a propitiatory Sacrifice unless they will say that Propitiation was made by Christ before he suffered on the Cross for this that Christ did was certainly before his Suffering And what need then of the following Oblation on the Cross if Propitiation was made before For what need that be done again that is sufficiently done already So that we conclude that there was no propitiatory Sacrifice offered in the Supper because there was no Propitiation made before the Oblation on the Cross And if there was no Propitiation made in the Sacrament then neither is there now the Institution being always the same and that only being required to be done by the Disciples which was then done and appointed by our Saviour and for the same Ends and no other And we in many places find that the purging away of our Sin and our Sanctification and Redemption which is the Fruit and Consequent of Propitiation is entirely attributed to that offering of the Body of Jesus Christ which was made by himself on the Cross and which was offered but once and that by this once offering all this was done so that there is to be no more offering then for Propitiation Heb. 7. 26 27. For such an High Priest became us who needed not as the legal Priests to offer up Sacrifices first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples and to do this often as they did it every Year and often For this he did once when he offered up himself And that once in him was sufficient to all the Ends of a propitiatory Offering Chap. 9. 12. For by his own Blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtain'd â—ternal Redemption for us by that once Offering If the Blood of Christ shed once upon the Cross â—e of such infinite and eternal efficacy and merit for our Redemption what need can there be of more For v. 13 14. How should not the Blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your Conscience from dead Works And Chap. 10. 10. We are sanctified and our Sins expiated by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ onâ—e for all And vers 13. This Man Christ Jesus after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sin for ever sat down on the right Hand of God as having fulfilled his Offering Vers 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Therefore saith God in consideration of this once Offering of Christ Vers 17. 18. Their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Now where Remission of these is there is no more Offering for Sin. There is Faith and Repentance indeed required on our part that we may have benefit in the Offering made but there is no more Offering for Sin that being sufficiently done already by Christ's own Offering So that to talk of the necessity of more or repeated Offerings and Sacrifices for Propitiation is in the necessary construction of the Fact whatever is pretended to impeach the once Offering of Christ which he made himself for us of insufficiency for the Ends of Propitiation And by this the Apostle argued the insufficiency of the legal Offerings Heb. 10. 1 2. For the Law having only a weak shadow of good things to come and not the very Image and solidity of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered Year by Year continually make the comers thereunto perfect as touching remission of Sin. For then would they not have ceased to be offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins for which there had been made sufficient atonement So that according to the Apostle the repetition and reiteration of Sacrifices is a note of their Imperfection And by the same reason the Sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the Cross would be imperfect if there were a necessity of its being frequently offered Which is manifestly
the Wilderness that were not circumcised no doubt died in that time Josh 5. 5. And shall we think therefore they were all deprived of eternal Salvation And what became of the other Sex that were not capable of Circumcision if the Sacrament of Circumcision were absolutely necessary to Salvation And if that was not absolutely necessary then why is Baptism so For if Baptism be so absolutely necessary to eternal Salvation that all Children dying without it should be excluded from the Grace of Christ then an infinite number of Children would meerly perish by the Fault or negligence of others without their own This would make the Salvation of a Child to depend upon the Will of a Midwife If she baptizeth the Child after his coming forth of the Womb behold he is saved but if she crusheth him behold he is lost for ever What can be more unreasonable than this Ezek. 18. 20. The Soul that sinneth it shall die The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father But if a little Child be not baptized this doth not come from his Fault and sure he shall not be punish'd for the negligence of his Parents or for want of opportunity When Moses neglected to circumcise his Son Exod. 4. God spared the Child in that he was Innocent but sought to kill Moses for his carelesness in the omission Note therefore that when it is said Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is plain from the following words that Baptism is not of the same necessity with Faith for it is added only and he that believeth not shall be damned But it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned if so be he hath Faith. But that Baptism is join'd to Faith in the Promise it is to signify and express our duty of publickly testifying our Faith in Christ by our being baptized in his Name So that Baptism is here required only as it denotes our external profession of the Faith of Christ which is to be notified by Baptism as the solemn and visible Sign of it Baptism being a Right divinely instituted for that end So again when it is said Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of Sin. And Chap 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy Sins calling on the Name of the Lord. It is so required and exprest because Men express and testify their Faith and Repentance by Baptism that they may obtain remission of Sin. And 't is by Baptism that God seals to them remission of Sin upon their Repentance and Faith in Christ therein testified and express'd 'T is the faithful undertaking of the Baptismal Covenant that is the condition of Salvation And Baptism it self is required only as it is necessary to notify and own this our Consent and Covenant unto others And if we perform the Condition the want of the use of the Sign when it doth not arise from our own neglect shall not hurt us As for John 3. 5. and Tit. 3. 5. see in the former Chapter Observe only this farther that by reason of the Opinion of the absolute necessity of Baptism to Salvation the Church of Rome hath impowred Midwives or any other Person to administer it in case of peril of Death But this Opinion being overthrown it is evident that that Practice is groundless it being the contempt which is a virtual rejection of the Christian Faith and not a bare want of it that is damning Moreover it is plain that our Saviour hath committed the administration of the Sacrament to those to whom he committed the Office of Teaching Matth. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them But this Office was committed to the Apostles and their Successors in the Ministry and not to Women to whom the Apostle hath prohibited it therefore so is the administration of Baptism prohibited to them likewise Of the Lord's Supper CHAP. XXV That after the Consecration there remains no more of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament but that there is a Transubstantiation or a change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Council of Trent Sess 13. chap. 4. Can. 2. THE Foundation upon which this portentous Doctrine is built are our Saviour's words of Institution Mat. 26. 27 28. and Luke 22. 19. Jesus Christ took Bread and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given unto you this do in remembrance of me Now we do not question but that our Saviour made his words good but the Question is In what sense our Saviour's Words are to be understood whether in a literal and proper or in a figurative Sense The Church of Rome saith in the literal and proper we say in the figurative Sense and so consequently that in them there is no Foundation of Transubstantiation Now to make this clear we argue thus If there be no necessity to understand them in the sense of Transubstantiation and there be a great deal of Reason to understand them in the figurative Sense in which we understand them and that it is very absurd and unreasonable to understand them otherwise then they ought to be understood in the Sense in which we understand them For we ought certainly to understand them in that Sense which it is most reasonable to understand them in Now that there is no necessity to understand them in the Sense of Transubstantiation and that there is a great deal of Reason to understand them otherwise may appear by these following Observations The Sense in which we understand them is very agreeable to the Custom and Usage and Manner of speaking which was very familiar among the Jews with whom such figurative Expressions were very common For we have many of this sort in Scripture it being usual in the Hebrew Language to say Things are that which only thy signify and represent As Gen. 41. 26. Joseph tells Pharaoh The seven good Kine are seven Years i. e. they signify and represent them And the seven good Ears of Corn are seven Years And so in the matter of the Sacraments as Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17. 9. and yet in the following Verse is expounded to be only the Token of it So the Paschal Lamb is called the Lord's Passover Exod. 12. 11. Yet by Verse 13. appears as in all reason it was to be only a sign of it So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it was the Sign and Seal of it And the Cup is by our Saviour called the New Testament because likewise it was the Seal of it where the Cup is also taken for the Wine in the Cup. Our Saviour speaking of himself saith I am the Door Joh. 10. 9. and I am the true Vine Joh. 15. 1. the Church of Rome would have mightily triumphed in it if it had been said This is my true Body yet no Body takes these Expressions
communicate in the Sacrament We do not deny this Spiritual Communion without which the other is ineffectual But our Saviour appointed not only a Spiritual Communion but a Sacramental Communion and this Sacramental Communion cannot be had without the Sacramental Action that is without communicating in the Sacrament Which therefore by our Saviour's Commandment all Christian People should do and not the Priest alone by himself CHAP. XXIX That the Sacrament is to be administred in one kind only and that the People are not to have the use of the Cup. Council of Trent Sess 21. chap. 2 3. Can. 1 2 3. AGainst that which is written Mat. 26. 27. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it Note then that the Cup is contained in our Saviour's Institution as well as the Bread and is as essential a part of it And if by virtue of the Institution all Christians are obliged to the use of the Bread then by virtue of the same Institution they are likewise obliged to the use of the Cup. Or if notwithstanding the Institution they may take away the Cup then notwithstanding the same Institution they may take away the Bread also and so they may make void the whole Sacrament Note also that in the same quality that the Apostles received the Cup in the same quality also they received the Bread. If they received the Cup as Priests and so that belongs only to Priests then they received the Bread as Priests likewise for there was no alteration made in them between the two Receivings of the Cup and the Bread. And by the same reason they may take away the Bread â—oo from all but Priests as well as the Cup. But indeed the Apostles were not there at the Supper in the quality either of Apostles or Priests But Jesus Christ did the Office of a Pastor and they were the Flock and so partak'd of the Supper as Christ's Disciples and not as Apostles or Priests Again vers 28. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Here we have the Reason of our Saviour's Command why all should drink of the Cup because this represents his Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now to all Christian People there belongs pardon of Sins by the Blood of Jesus Christ and not only to the Priest And therefore all Christian People are to partake of the Cup and not the Priests only For to whom the reason of the Command belongs to all such belongs the Command Again note It is by the Blood of Jesus Christ shed and separated from his Body that Remission of Sins is obtained of which they are to keep up a Commemoration in the Sacrament And this Commemoration therefore cannot be kept up by the use of the Bread alone without the Cup which hath a particular relation to his Blood shed or poured out So that there is a proper and peculiar use of the Cup in the Sacrament as well as of the Bread. And the use of it as it is said belongs to all those to whom Remission of Sin by Christ's Blood shed and poured out belongs which is here in this way represented and sealed to them Mark 14. 23. And he took the Cup and when he had given Thanks he gave it to them and they All drank of it Note that as Jesus Christ said Drink ye all of this so it is here expresly observed by this Evangelist that they All drank of it This Communion of All is particularly observed touching the Cup and not touching the Bread surely not without Reason but as if the Holy Spirit would thereby purposely forewarn us against this sacrilegious presumption of the Church of Rome in debarring the People the use of the Cup. John 16. â—3 Verily verily I say unto you Except 〈◊〉 at the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood 〈◊〉 have no liâ—e iâ— you Our Adversaries believe that in this place he speaks of the Lord's Supper and by consequence they deprive as much as in them lies all the poor People of Eternal Life if it be to be meant as they interpret it because they do not permit them to drink of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. They did all eat the same spiritual Meaâ—â— and did all drink the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and this Rock was Christ The Israelites did not only eat of the Manna which was a Figure of the Body of Christ but they also drank of his Blood in a Mystery And why should they with-hold from Christian People the same priviledg when our Saviour hath allowed it to them For vers 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ It is the Cup that is the Communion of the Blood of Christ And why will they hinder the Christian People then from the Cup which is the Communion of his Blood. For if the Cup be the Communion of his Blood it is in vain to pretend that whole Christ is contained and communicated under the Species of Bread. Vers 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread and of that one Cup as it is added in some Copies But whether these words were in the beginning or were added afterwards 't is plain that whensoever they were inserted the Cup was then in use among the People 1 Cor. 11. 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. Here the Apostle repeating the Institution of the Supper lets us know that it is the Cup that is the Seal of the New Testament confirmed by the Blood of Christ And should not those then who have part in the Covenant have part also in the Seals of the Covenant Now all Believers have part in the Covenant therefore they ought also to partake of the Cup that is the Seal of the Covenant And upon this the Command follows Do this as oâ—t as ye drink it in remembrance of me So that all those who are in the Covenant and so ought to celebrate the memory of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament where the Covenant is confirmed ought to partake of the Cup for this End. But all true Christians ought to do this and consequently ought to partake of the Cup For if the Command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ added after the Bread Luke 22. 19 20. make it the Duty of all Christians to partake of the Bread for that End. Then the same Command added after the Cup which is here mentioned by St. Paul makes it their Duty in like manner to partake of the Cup. And if they are not obliged by this to the use of the Cup neither are they obliged by that to the use of the Bread and so they may take away from them the
use of the Bread too as well as the Cup or else they ought to continue both aâ— there is the same Command for both Vers 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till be come So that they must drink this Cup as well as eat this Bread to shew the Lord's Death This is to be done by both together and not by either singly And all those for whom Christ died then are obliged to shew his Death in the Sacrament by the use of the Cup as well as by the use of the Bread. But Christ died not only for the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel but also for the People And therefore this order concerns both Vers 28. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. This is spoken to the People of Corinth and it is plain from many Passages in this and the foregoing Chapter that the People of the Church of Corinth did drink of the Cup and committed great excess in their drinking But notwithstanding this Abuse the Apostle doth not presume to alter the Institution or to take it away And what shall we thinkâ— then of the presumptuous boldness of the Church of Rome that dares to do this in manifest defiance of and open contradiction to our Saviour's Command and Institution and without the least colour of any good reason If they say whole Christ is contained in the Bread was it not so in the beginning of our Saviour's Institution as well as now And if our Saviour notwithstanding instituted the Cup how do they dare to take it away upon this vain Presumption as if they knew better than our Saviour what was fit to be done This Doctrine of Concomitancy of the Blood with the Body did not keep our Saviour from instituting the Cup and how comes it to be so good a Reason now to take away what he was instituted He hath appointed different Symbols one for his Body alone and another for his Blood as shed and separated from his Body the one to eat and the other to drink And how should the Bread which is to be eaten which represents his Body without the Blood represent to us the Blood as shed and separated from his Body by way of concomitancy when they are considered as asunder If so then the Blood of Christ must be eaten too with the Bread but is not drank whereas our Saviour instituted the Cup as a Symbol of his Blood shed and so to be drank apart as the Symbol of it and not eat by way of concomitancy with the Bread which is the particular Symbol or Figure of his Body But some have urged that some of the Blood may be apt to hang upon Mens Beards and so be profaned and therefore for this reason the People ought not to have the use of the Cup. As if there were not Beards in our Saviour's Time also as well as now but they were new sprung up or new come in fashion in these latter Ages But it seems our Saviour did not consider this very weighty Reason SOME PREJUDICES OF THE Church of ROME Answered SECT I. They accuse our Doctrine of Novelty THIS the Pharisees likewise alledged against our Lord Jesus Christ and urged the same Prejudices Mark 1. 27. They question among themselves saying What thing is this What new Doctrine is this And Acts 17. 19. St. Paul being brought to Areopagus they demanded of him May we know what this New Doctrine whereof thou speakest is So likewise this is the Tone of the Romish Doctors who call the Reformation an upstart Religion and say that our Doctrine is new and still are insisting upon the thread-bare Question Where was your Religion before Luther As the Ancient Heathens no doubt would be almost perpetually questioning the Jews in the same manner Where was your Religion before Abraham And the same Answer for substance will serve for our Defence that would do for theirs For as our Saviour said to the Pharisees Whatever they may pretend about the Antiquity of their Religion the like the Jews might say to the Heathen and so we may say to the Church of Rome That from the beginning it was not so Idolatry and the worship of Idols was not from the beginning So neither was the Mass Purgatory worship of Images Invocation of Saints believed or taught from the beginning of Christianity But our Religion is as ancient as Christianity it self as the Jewish Religion in worshipping the True God in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry was as old as that of Noah or Enoch or Adam For we believe and receive nothing as absolutely necessary to Salvation but what our Saviour and his Apostles taught and delivered to the World and what is contained in the Ancient Creeds But as the Worship of the one True God and the True Religion was greaâ—ly corrupted in the Ancient Times which Abraham was raised up to reform and so his Reformation was new in comparison of the Abuses that were before So indeed the Reformation of the Corruptions and Errors which for many Ages had obtained in these Western Parts of the World did not begin very long ago And if this be accused of Novelty we cannot help that but are sorry it was no sooner All Reformation is new in comparison of the Abuses that went before and so therefore was that set aâ—oot by Luther But how could this be remedied unless there should be no Reformation at all or because things are once â—ad they should never be better For they cannot be better without being reformed and whenever a Reformation begins it is certainly New. So that the Question is Whether those were Errors and Abuses which the Reformation cut off and so whether it were a Reformation really or no And if this be so as may appear in part by the foregoing Treatise then the Reformation justifies it self though it was pâ—â—y it had not been sooner And all those Negative Articles which we hold in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome and which now make up part of our Confession of Faith in opposition to those Errors are only New because the Reformation is New. And so it must be whensoever Men renounce or protest against Errors or unless they will err still SECT II. They say That we had no Call. THey say we had no Call to do as we did we had no Call to separate from the Church of Rome or to set aâ—oot this pretended Reformation But were those Errors or no which the Church of Rome taught And were they Innovations and Corruptions or no which they practised If they were as hath appeared in part before have we no Call to renounce Errors or to reject Corruptions or must there never be a Reformation of Things that are amiss If they say we should have stay'd till the Church had done it If they mean by the Church the Church of Rome we see it